English
Now this one speaks, taking a teacher's doctrine. The other (speaks) a Sutta. The Sutta should be brought into the teacher's doctrine. If it fits, if it accords, it should be accepted. The other blameworthy Sutta should not be accepted. One should stand by the teacher's doctrine alone. Now this one speaks, taking a teacher's doctrine. The other (speaks) Sutta-conformity. Sutta-conformity should be brought into the teacher's doctrine. Only that which fits and accords should be accepted. The other should not be accepted. One should stand by the teacher's doctrine alone. Now this one speaks, taking a teacher's doctrine. The other (speaks) his own opinion. His own opinion should be brought into the teacher's doctrine. If it fits, if it accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by the teacher's doctrine alone. Now this one speaks, taking his own opinion. The other (speaks) a Sutta. The Sutta should be brought into his own opinion. If it fits, if it accords, it should be accepted. The other blameworthy Sutta should not be accepted. One should stand by his own opinion alone. Now this one speaks, taking his own opinion. The other (speaks) Sutta-conformity. Sutta-conformity should be brought into his own opinion. Only that which fits and accords should be accepted. The other should not be accepted. One should stand by his own opinion alone. One speaks holding one's own opinion, another, the teacher's doctrine. The teacher's doctrine should be brought into one's own opinion. If it descends and accords, it should be accepted. The other blameworthy teacher's doctrine should not be accepted. One should stand by one's own opinion, one's own understanding should be made strong. And in all places, no rejection or blame should be made. Now, if one speaks holding it allowable, and another, unallowable, it should be brought into the Sutta and its accordance. If it is allowable, one should stand by the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if this one shows many reasons and determinations from the Sutta proving its allowability, and the other finds no reason, one should stand by the allowable. Now, if the other shows many reasons and determinations from the Sutta proving its unallowability, this one should not stand firmly holding to one's own understanding. But accepting with "Good!", one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if a shadow of reason is seen for both, the state of being prohibited is better; one should stand by the unallowable. For having reached the Vinaya, one should, based on the consideration of allowable and unallowable, restrain, act firmly, cut off the stream, and stand by the weighty aspect. Now, if one speaks holding it unallowable, and another, allowable, it should be brought into the Sutta and its accordance. If it is allowable, one should stand by the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if this one shows its unallowability with many Sutta-based reasons and determinations, and the other finds no reason, one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if the other shows its allowability with many Sutta-based reasons and determinations, and this one finds no reason, one should stand by the allowable. Now, if a shadow of reason is seen for both, one's own understanding should not be abandoned. And just as this determination has been stated for allowable/unallowable and unallowable/allowable, so too in the discussion of non-offence/offence and offence/non-offence, and in the discussion of light/heavy offence and heavy/light offence, the determination (is similar). This is to be understood. For here, the difference is only in name, there is no difference in application, therefore, it is not elaborated. Thus, when a decision arises concerning what is allowable and unallowable, whoever finds a stronger reason among the Suttas, what accords with the Suttas, the teachers' views, or one's own opinion, his view should be adopted. But if one cannot find a decisive reason at all, the Sutta should not be abandoned, one should stand by the Sutta. Thus, by one desiring skill in all Vinaya decisions, this fourfold Vinaya should be known. And having known this fourfold Vinaya, a person who upholds the Vinaya should be endowed with three characteristics. Indeed, three characteristics are desired for a Vinaya-holder. Which three? For him, the Sutta is well-received, well-practiced, well-discerned from the Sutta and its detailed explanations. This is one characteristic. And he stands firm in the Vinaya, unyielding. This is the second. And for him, the tradition of teachers is well-grasped, well-attended to, well-retained. This is the third. Therein, 'Sutta' means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. That it is 'well-received' for him means it is well-come. 'Well-practiced' means well-practiced, proficient, memorized. 'Well-discerned from the Sutta and its detailed explanations' means it is well-discerned from the Pāḷi, from questioning, and from the commentaries, having removed doubts, it is learned. That he 'stands firm in the Vinaya' means he is established in the Vinaya with a sense of shame. For one without shame, even if learned, due to valuing gain, distorts the tradition, proclaiming what is not Dhamma, not Vinaya, not the Teacher's Dispensation, causes great harm to the Dispensation, even creating schism in the Sangha, or a king over the Sangha. But one with shame, conscientious, desirous of training, even for the sake of life, does not distort the tradition, but proclaims only the Dhamma, only the Vinaya, and holds the Teacher's Dispensation in high regard. Thus, in the past, the great elders uttered a statement three times: ‘In the future, the conscientious will protect, the conscientious will protect, the conscientious will protect!’ (Parajika Commentary 1.45). Thus, whoever is conscientious, he Not abandoning the discipline, not transgressing, by means of shame, he stands in the discipline, well-established. 'Asaṃhīra' means: 'Saṃhīra' is one who, in the Pāli or in the commentary, from below or from above, or in sequence of words, when questioned, becomes confused, flounders, cannot stand firm. Whatever is said by others, that he assents to, abandoning his own view, he takes up the view of others. But he who, in the Pāli or in the commentary, from below or above, or in sequence of words, when questioned, does not become confused, does not flounder, like one grasping each single hair with tweezers, answers, "Thus we say, thus our teachers say." In whom the Pāli and the interpretation of Pāli like lion's fat placed in a golden vessel, stands without wasting away or being exhausted, he is called 'Asaṃhīra'. "His lineage of teachers is well-grasped" means his lineage of elders, his family lineage, is well-grasped by him. "Well-attended to" means well-minded, like a lamp that flares up just by being turned on. "Well-retained" means well-retained, retained from the connection of prior and subsequent, from meaning and from reason. Abandoning his own opinion, he speaks with the purity of his teachers. "My teacher learned from such-and-such a teacher, and he from such-and-such," thus bringing forth the entire lineage of teachers, the essence of the Theravāda, he establishes it, reaching up to where Elder Upāli learned from the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. And from there, bringing it forth: Elder Upāli learned from the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One; Elder Dāsaka from his preceptor, Elder Upāli; Elder Soṇa from his preceptor, Elder Dāsaka; Elder Siggava from his preceptor, Elder Soṇa; Elder Moggaliputtatissa from his preceptors, Elder Siggava and Elder Caṇḍavajjī. Thus bringing forth the entire lineage of teachers, the essence of the Theravāda, he establishes it, reaching up to his own teacher. Indeed, a lineage of teachers thus learned is well-grasped. If one is unable to do so, then certainly two or three repetitions must be learned. Indeed, by the very last method, as the teacher and the teacher's teacher declare the Pāḷi and the inquiry, so should one know. And indeed, by a Vinaya-holder endowed with these three characteristics, when the Saṅgha has assembled to decide a case, and the case has been brought forward, and what is to be said has been said by both the accuser and the accused, one should not decide hastily, but six points must be examined. Which six? The case must be examined, the summary must be examined, the word-by-word analysis must be examined, the section on triplets must be examined, the intermediate offense must be examined, the non-offense must be examined. Indeed, when examining the case, if one sees a certain offense, such as: "One should come covered with grass or leaves, but not naked. Whoever comes naked, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata)," (Pārā. 517) then one should bring that Sutta and settle that dispute. When examining the summary, if one sees one of the five offenses, such as: "For intentional false speech, there is an offense of expiation (pācittiya)," (Pāci. 3) then one should bring that Sutta and settle that dispute. When examining the word-by-word analysis, if one sees one of the seven offenses, such as: "If one engages in sexual intercourse with an unconsumed body, there is an offense of defeat (pārājika). If one engages in sexual intercourse with a mostly consumed body, there is an offense of grave offense (thullaccaya)," (Pārā. 59, similar in meaning) then one should bring the Sutta from the word-by-word analysis and settle that dispute. When examining the section on triplets, if one sees an offense of a triplet-Saṅghādisesa, or a triplet-Pācittiya, or a triplet-Dukkaṭa, or any other offense in the section on triplets, then one should bring the Sutta from there and settle that dispute. When examining the intermediate offense, if one sees an intermediate offense that occurs between training rules, such as: